Obama stepped from Air Force One carrying an umbrella as a persistent rain fell on the tarmac. Before he emerged, he sent a message to Cuba on Twitter: "¿Que bolá Cuba?" he wrote, using an informal Cuban greeting. "Just touched down here, looking forward to meeting and hearing directly from the Cuban people."

The arrogant asshole landed. Marvelous. He could have gone instead to San Juan PR and have taken the tour of Old San Juan. Might have even helped the PR tourism business. But no, this jerk has to stiff PR, the DR and other friendly Latin Caribbean countries to help Americas enemies. Obama never fails to chose the other side when given a choice between America's interests and the interest's of those hostile to America.

The Wall Street Journal employs a columnist, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, whose beat is South and Central America and the Caribbean. She is brilliant. And, the Cubans won't allow her into the country.

There are lots of reasons to have nothing to do with Cuba. One might be their harboring an American fugitive, Assata Shakur. Another might be the regular human rights abuses of their own citizens. A third might be Cuba's dubious entanglements in foreign affairs in other South American nations. But my favorite reason to have nothing to do with Cuba is Cuba's repressive press policies, including its ban on Ms. O'Grady's entering the country, on political grounds.

Naturally, this is yet another issue on which Donald Trump finds himself on the wrong side of the party which he hopes will nominate him as its candidate for President of the United States. You have to love the way that Ms. O'Grady leads her column:"President Obama travels to Havana this week in an effort to extract concessions, not from Communist Cuba, but from the U.S. Congress. To that end, get ready for what the late, great entertainment host Ed Sullivan might have called 'a really big shew.'

"Keep in mind as this extravaganza unfurls over the next couple of days that some foreigners who have been critical of the regime, including your humble columnist, are barred from reporting from the island.

"On Dec. 17, 2014, Mr. Obama announced that he would normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba. He also said that the U.S. embargo—which prohibits foreign direct investment in Cuba by Americans, credit for Cuba from U.S. financial institutions, and Cuban sales of goods to the U. S.—should be lifted.

"The dictatorship loves the idea. But Congress believes that before there are American investments in Cuba the regime ought to pay for the property it stole after the 1959 revolution, and ensure basic human-rights for Cubans. Since Congress still passes the laws in this country, Mr. Obama’s capitalism for the Castros remains uncertain until U.S. lawmakers capitulate."

It's all about the money and its necessity for retaining power. The Cuban regime has used up its credit with everyone else, only the US is left. So now the US loans them money and they play ball with the President. Maybe now the left will drop the exterminating hate they have had against Cuban refugees.

As for Titus, yes it's more convenient. Previously, if I understand correctly, one had to fly across the Pacific for this sort of fun, and in some places there was some risk that the local authorities would remember their responsibilities and jail one of the tourists. In Cuba it's likely they will be more careful to forget.

Imagine. Treating Cuba like 190 other UN Member States. Trying a new tack after only 55 years.

Imagine . Kissing the ass of a brutal Communist dictator who has killed and tortured millions of his own people, and millions more around the world. Selling out the sacrifices made by Americans and Cubans for fifty five years.

While I loath the vile little man in the WH, it's been reported he'll be meeting with the leader of the Ladies in White. No word on minders or how many Ladies in White remain prisoner until after the propaganda meet-up.

When will the democratic party give up its communist jock sniffing? As someone has already pointed out, Cuba has exhausted its line of credit after duping the rest of the world and is moving on to the suckers in the U.S. This is all this arrangement means to them.

Obama is sprinting it in on the last lap on destroying American strength every way imaginable in the theory people will love us for it and not kill, steal and destroy like man always does until stood up to.

Just like with Iran, his idea of ending estrangement is giving them whatever they want with no preconditions, on their end. they can continue acting the exact same way and we will normalize relations. I can't wait for this guy to be out of office already.

More dissidents rounded up the day before Obama arrives. Nice. What exactly did the U.S get out of this exactly? I mean other than international humiliation.

Obama likes to do things that are labeled by the press as "historic", even though we don't really know how or if history will remember them.So, this was historic, this new relationship with Cuba. Of course, all he did was declare the situation over. Kind of like with the Iran deal.

"I suppose that next we will re-establish diplomatic relations with China and Vietnam." Indeed. Our policy toward Cuba makes no sense, and is long overdue for fixing. They have an evil repressive government, but so do most countries we have relations with.

China's and Vietnam's dictatorial regimes are every bit as oppressive and torturous on human rights as is Cuba's, and in China's case, it is far more hostile to American interests on the international order (especially in the South China Sea) than Cuba ever was in Latin America or Africa.

What is it about "Communism" that you object to then, if it's not China and Vietnam's heinous human rights policies?

My middle daughter, who is a lefty, visited Cuba about ten years ago on the sly through Mexico with a friend. She thought she would find that Socialism worked. Instead, as she is fluent in Spanish, she found that it is a prison. Her leftism was shaken.

"China's and Vietnam's dictatorial regimes are every bit as oppressive and torturous on human rights as is Cuba's, and in China's case,"

They are really fascist. The left thinks fascism is a right wing ideology but it is not.

Vietnam, ironically, is looking for protection from the US. China, I think, is fragile and the flood of Chinese money coming over here and buying stuff, is the first crack in the wall, just as Japan doing the same thing in the 80s predicted its fall.

But, so now we're at: Diplomatic relations with oppressive and torturous "fascist" regimes is fine; diplomatic relations with oppressive and torturous "communist" regimes is bad. That doesn't help me very much in understanding this position.

1948. Carlos Prio Socarras of the Partido Autentico (Authentic Party) won the Presidency. In 1952, three months before the next elections were to be held, Fulgencio Batista initiated a coup d'etat when he realized that he was going to finish in third.

I'm just trying to understand why it's good to have diplomatic relations and trade with "fascist" and "Islamic" regimes who are oppressive and torturous of human rights, but bad to have diplomatic relations and trade with "communist" regimes who are oppressive and torturous of human rights. I really would like to understand your position, sir.

Cuba = prison. Scary evil place. Edge of Havana is high-rise cast concrete slums put up by Soviets, city center is crumbling pre-revolutionary infrastructure. Fanciest conference center looks like a bankrupt Best Western. Cuban equivalent of National Institutes of Health research center looks like a community college with hand-me-down fume hoods.

A pervading sense of menace, failure and paranoia. Could not leave fast enough.

Unfortunately, there are strategic and economic reasons why we have to compromise our values and our security to deal with our enemies at times. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

There is no reason why we should do so with respect to Cuba. She serves no strategic or economic purposes for the United States, nothing we do will improve the lives of her enslaved people, and instead will continue to prop up the most morally and economically bankrupt country on Earth this side of North Korea.

Some years back I saw a photo of the Cuban Politburo. The faces were all white. Castro's forces helped install Mengitsu in Ethiopia. It's a fast track, but he's still considered to have been one of Africa's most murderous despots. During the Cuban middle crisis, his advice to the Russians was to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the United States. .....I don't understand why the left is enamored with Castro. Even by their standards, he's a failure. He has given aid and sanctuary to a cop killer. There's that, but on most other levels he has not advanced the cause of social justice.

"Remind what anyone besides the Castro brothers or Obama is getting out of this?

If you mean out of this particular trip, then the answer is not much of anything. This trip is primarily about the optics, I suspect. To start with, easing travel and trade restrictions is a good first step, though of course the prize will be ending the stupid embargo policy. None of this will be transformative for Cuba, but it does place us on a how much stronger ground and offers a variety of opportunities for further, more constructive engagement with the regime in the future.

It's really quite simple. Denigrating America's idea of it's inherent exceptionalism is why Che tee shirts are popular among the leftist youth, it's why Sean Penn provides such visible support to the disasterous Venezuelan bus driver, it's why college leftists renounce "white privilege," it's why BLM elevates cop killers to hero status, it's why our president embraces those who vow "death to America." To put it at its simplest, the domestic left is enamored with any regime, movement or philosophy that tweaks its nose at America. It's more "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing than some deeply held conviction about the righteousness of the tyrants they embrace. Fortunately (for the leftists) America is still expectional enough to deal with her domestic enemies without resorting to the type of bloodshed preferred by the left's Cuban, Venezuelan and Iranian allies. Hopefully, it will remain so.

FarmerRewarding bad behavior doesn't result in good behavior. You seem to have a problem recognizing that.Iran, for example. Taking their new found wealth and instead of improving the lives of its citizens is purchasing every type of military hardware they can get their hands on.

Not so far from hereThere's a very lively atmosphereEv'rybody's going there this yearAnd there's a reasonThe season opened last JulyEver since the U.S.A. went dryEv'rybody's going there and I'm going, tooI'm on my way to

[Refrain:]Cuba, there's where I'm goingCuba, there's where I'll stay

Cuba, where wine is flowingAnd where dark-eyed StellasLight their fellers' Panatellas

Cuba, where all is happyCuba, where all is gay

Why don't you plan aWonderful tripTo Havana?Hop on a shipAnd I'll see you in C.U.B.A.

1) Wow, dark eyed Stellas and "Panatellas". Everyone is gay. It's almost like Irving B had a crystal ball and could see politics in America, 2016.2) "Everyone is gay". See Titus, no problemo.

The sad fact is that even should the Castro family somehow disappear and that island shithole become free all of the people who would know how to build the country back up again have gone. The people there now would not know what to do.

"If you wish to defend the policy of Nixon opening relations with China, feel free. I always appreciate a good Nixon apologist."

Uhm, yes, I support Nixon's opening relations with China- it was essential to his Grand Design (what Kissinger called the "structure of peace"). Reagan supported improving diplomacy with China as well: he visited Beijing in April 1984 to complete diplomatic relations and demonstrate that he could speak a little Chinese.

"Unfortunately, there are strategic and economic reasons why we have to compromise our values and our security to deal with our enemies at times. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

There is no reason why we should do so with respect to Cuba. She serves no strategic or economic purposes for the United States, nothing we do will improve the lives of her enslaved people, and instead will continue to prop up the most morally and economically bankrupt country on Earth this side of North Korea."

So, your position is that we value not having diplomatic relations with oppressive, torturous regimes that don't respect human rights, but we should not honor those values if the heinous regime serves a strategic and/or economic purpose? Thus, we have diplomatic relations and trade with the likes of: Belarus, Burma, Chad, China, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, all on the FreedomHouse list of the world's most repressive societies. For those countries, we will compromise our values and maintain diplomatic relations. [Note: Cuba, North Korea and Somalia complete the list].

Bobby:I like the strange, newfound respect for Nixon. He also gave us the EPA and many other regulatory agencies that are bankrupting the country. And the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1974 -- which is bankrupting the country.

I don't know much about Nixon's domestic policy legacy. I was referring only to his opening of China, which I thought was obvious given that I wrote "I support Nixon's opening relations with China" -- I'll try using tighter language for you next time.

Maintaining normal relations with a country isn't a reward. And the purpose of maintaining relations with a country is not to get "good behavior" from them but because it is in the interest of your country and your citizens to do so.

@Gahrie:

"Why? That will only benefit Castro and his cronies...it won't make life one bit better for the average Cuban, and will in fact only prolong their suffering."

Do you suppose that we trade with China or Mexico or France because we want to improve the life for the average Chinese, Mexican, or French? Or do you suppose we do it because it is in our economic self-interest to sell goods to people who want to buy them?

@Mark Caplan:

While watching an American president honor Fidel and Raul Castro, that other repressive military dictator, Bashar al-Assad, must be thinking, What am I, chopped liver?

Don't forget our new best friend in Egypt, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. He's still cashing US taxpayer welfare checks.

Beg your pardon, sir, but Cubans are not "banned" from using Twitter. Now your overall point is true: Cubans can generally only access the internet from government-owned cafes (and at prohibitive rates for the average Cuban), with the result being that internet access in general is so poor that very few Cubans on the island probably saw President Obama's tweet.

But Cubans that choose to dole out a third of their weekly wages for one-hour on the internet can, if they so choose, access Twitter. (Government officials, of course, can do so for free from their government offices because apparently that's how "equality" and "egalitarianism" work in socialism). What you might be thinking is "tweet by text message" -- Cuba doesn't have a short code to enable that capability.

Since we cannot wipe out every evil regime on Earth (or even agree who they are) we shouldn't attempt to fight any evil, and should gladly prop up and subsidize the evil Communist dictators in Cuba, and force the Cuban people to stay in their chains so they can serve us cheap rum and clean our hotel rooms.

This is not true. The US dollar has not been illegal on the island for twenty-plus years. It is true, however, that (government-owned, of course) retail business no longer accept the US dollar, and that US dollars must be converted into Cuban pesos for a rather hefty surcharge (I believe it is currently 10%). But it is not "illegal" for ordinary Cubans to own US dollars.

Oh yes, you've certainly hit the nail right on the head. And I am also quite certain that's why Cato, the American Enterprise Institute, and The Federalist all oppose the embargo: because of their hard ons for "commies." Are you sure you're not an Onion parody bot?

I am not a Communist- I'm politically a moderate libertarian (and a registered member of the Libertarian Party). Please, sir, could you refrain from personal attacks? I am treating you with nothing but respect, and simply trying to have a conversation with you as I do so much want to understand your position.

With respect to Cuba and the US being declared enemies, is that status more likely to end through the establishment of diplomatic relations or through a continued policy of isolation and refusal to engage diplomatically? Might starting a dialogue be a first step toward ending any outstanding enmities?

Putting it otherwise: You may do "A" but only with my permission and with my monitoring. And it's something I can take away at any time for any reason.

So, you're not banned from doing "A" but I have complete control over you doing it and I can ban you at any time.

It's like extolling the Cuban literacy rate but ignoring the fact that what the people can read is controlled by the government. You're not banned from reading things but the things you are allowed to read are tightly controlled.

No, Twitter is not blocked in Cuba. There's so little internet access in Cuba that the government has not (yet) seen the need to create widespread Chinese-style firewalls. I'm sure that will change as Google extends internet service to the island.

With respect to Cuba and the US being declared enemies, is that status more likely to end through the establishment of diplomatic relations or through a continued policy of isolation and refusal to engage diplomatically?

I vote for the second option..isolation. Cuba has run out of other's people money, except Obama has come to their rescue at the last minute. How are American tourists going to improve the lives of the average Cuban?

Might starting a dialogue be a first step toward ending any outstanding enmities?

Probably not. They want us to drop dead, we want them to drop dead.

The only thing that will improve the lives of the average Cuban is the end of Communism and the exit of the Castros and their lackeys. Something that is now less likely than it was.

Want to bet that Castro's personal fortune is greater than Batista's ever was? How come the leaders of Communist and Socialist nations always wind up rich?

I am not a Communist- I'm politically a moderate libertarian (and a registered member of the Libertarian Party). Please, sir, could you refrain from personal attacks? I am treating you with nothing but respect, and simply trying to have a conversation with you as I do so much want to understand your position.

With respect to Cuba and the US being declared enemies, is that status more likely to end through the establishment of diplomatic relations or through a continued policy of isolation and refusal to engage diplomatically? Might starting a dialogue be a first step toward ending any outstanding enmities?

3/21/16, 9:58 AM"

The US is a sovereign nation. It isn't required to have relations with any country. So the question here is what is the benefit to the US in having a commercial relationship with Cuba versus the negatives of such a relationship? I for one do not see the need for US taxpayers to guarantee the credit worthiness of Cuban state enterprises for the benefit of US farm exports. Cuba can pay cash like it does to others since no one else will extend Cuba credit.As it is, US farmers have been able to export to Cuban for years on a cash basis except for the fact Cuba is short of cash. As it is if an American wants a Latin Caribbean vacation they can go to Puerto Rico which happens to be a part of the US. I fail to see why we need to reward our enemies and punish ourselves.

One thing the Castro brothers are good at is being jailers. Maybe President Trump can cut a deal with Cuba: take all foreign national criminals in US prisons for the full duration of the prisoners sentence at $10,000 a head per year which would cover prisoner housing and board and upon release an additional $2,000 for the airfare for deporting the criminal back to their country of origin. For Cuba the cash would be enormous, for the US the savings really yuuugge and Cuba will have plenty of cash to buy US exports. A win-win.

Whereas I look at the last fifty years of Cuban policy and, citing Einstein's definition of insanity (if he ever really said it), conclude that imminent change this time is unlikely to occur. But neither one of us really know that for sure- perhaps the embargo only needs 60 years to induce behavior change?

In any case, oft lost in these discussions is that re-establishing diplomatic relations is not the same as lifting the embargo, removing sanctions and restoring trade -- the latter does not automatically accompany or follow the former, would require statutory changes (for which Congress may not necessarily be so inclined to make) and the Castro regime is likely to need to address a number of issues (albeit probably not human rights) in order to see a liberalization of trade policy (for starters, agreeing to the compensation for the expropriated property). If Castro's regime really is on its last legs, and the embargo is responsible for that, then it seems to me that restoring diplomatic relations alone is unlikely to make any substantive difference to prevent the collapse before any sanctions relief can be implemented. It appears you may very well get your wish.

Maintaining normal relations with a country isn't a reward. And the purpose of maintaining relations with a country is not to get "good behavior" from them but because it is in the interest of your country and your citizens to do so.

"The US is a sovereign nation. It isn't required to have relations with any country. So the question here is what is the benefit to the US in having a commercial relationship with Cuba versus the negatives of such a relationship?"

Re-establishing diplomatic relations does not constitute a commercial relationship, sir. It constitutes a diplomatic relationship.

But Cubans that choose to dole out a third of their weekly wages for one-hour on the internet can, if they so choose, access Twitter.

Since it's illegal in Cuba for a citizen to have an internet connection unless they are part of the government elite it is highly unlikely the average Cuban knew anything other than what they are told.There are internet cafe's in Havana. However it can easily cost more than a months salary to use one provided you pass the screening process. Which is moot since computer anything isn't taught in Cuban schools.

In any case, oft lost in these discussions is that re-establishing diplomatic relations is not the same as lifting the embargo, removing sanctions and restoring trade -- the latter does not automatically accompany or follow the former, would require statutory changes (for which Congress may not necessarily be so inclined to make)

Really? That's why an American company has already signed a contract to run three of the Cuban government's hotels for them right?

and the Castro regime is likely to need to address a number of issues (albeit probably not human rights) in order to see a liberalization of trade policy (for starters, agreeing to the compensation for the expropriated property).

Apparently not.

If Castro's regime really is on its last legs, and the embargo is responsible for that, then it seems to me that restoring diplomatic relations alone is unlikely to make any substantive difference to prevent the collapse before any sanctions relief can be implemented. It appears you may very well get your wish.

Instead, apparently you are going to get yours...a rejuvenated and enriched Communist dictatorship propped up by American dollars.

I think this is just further evidence obama is just not a good negotiator. Giving away the store does not get you anything but contempt, particularly from negotiators like Cuba, Iran or North Korea. If obama had any dignity he would have sent a lower functionary like Kerry a new ambassador and left it at that. And does that sound like a winning strategy to get the embargo lifted by congress by being used as a propaganda ploy by Havana?

Starwood (soon to be part of Marriott) received authorization from the US Department of Treasury and signed an agreement with the Cuban government to operate three hotels (Hotel Inglaterra, Hotel Quinta Avenida, and possibly Hotel Santa Isabel) on the island. Starwood will receive a fee from the Cuban government for providing their management service.

3) The U.S. will immediately be providing Cuba with humanitarian aid, probably several hundred million dollars a year."

Do you want to put some money on it?

If you are correct, I will be the first to give you credit. I'll even give you more than just "the end of this trip"- let's say, one week after his return to US soil? However, I suspect you are going to go 0-for-3, hence my desire to profit from your emotionally-driven prediction.

"With respect to Cuba and the US being declared enemies, is that status more likely to end through the establishment of diplomatic relations or through a continued policy of isolation and refusal to engage diplomatically? Might starting a dialogue be a first step toward ending any outstanding enmities?"

How about we remove the root cause of enmities - the fascist dictatorship in Cuba?

"How about we remove the root cause of enmities - the fascist dictatorship in Cuba?"

I'm all for it. How do you want to go about bringing the removal of the Castro regime-- should we just maintain the 50+-year status quo and hope that it miraculously yields a different result this time, or do you think it's about time we tried something different?

Because all of the money earned by those hotels will go straight into the pockets of the Castros and their lackeys, and none of it will reach the Cuban people. The Castros will once again enrich themselves through the slave labor of their people, and you and those like you will sip your rum, give the waiter a tip, and congratulate yourself on how you are making his life better. Meanwhile, as soon as his shift is over the Cuban government will confiscate those tips, and at best give him some worthless Cuban scrip in exchange.

I'm all for it. How do you want to go about bringing the removal of the Castro regime-- should we just maintain the 50+-year status quo and hope that it miraculously yields a different result this time, or do you think it's about time we tried something different?

I'm all for an invasion or an assassination, but somehow I think you will oppose that.

"The Castros will once again enrich themselves through the slave labor of their people, and you and those like you will sip your rum, give the waiter a tip, and congratulate yourself on how you are making his life better."

Hahaha, you obviously don't know me very well. I have vacationed in more than a dozen Caribbean nations-- I have not once been and plan never to go to Cuba until the Castro regime is gone. And it's not just Cuba- when stationed in Korea, I refused to vacation in China and Vietnam; when in Iraq and Afghanistan, I refused to vacation in Dubai and Egypt- all for the same reason. In fact- except when required by my service to the US Government on official business- I have never set foot on authoritarian soil and I hope never to do so.

"I'm all for an invasion or an assassination, but somehow I think you will oppose that.

Surrendering does not seem the right answer to me somehow"

We tried an invasion- it didn't turn out very well. We tried numerous assassination attempts, too- they didn't turn out so well, either. (AM/LASH, otherwise known as Rolando Cubela, spent 13 years in prison for his failed attempt, but there were many others). There are other options between invasion/assassination on one hand and surrender on the other- embargo and isolation was the one we happened to try for the last 50 years, and it it did not work as expected. I think it's time to explore other opportunities to undermine the Castro regime.

I thought you were over-the-top before, but this is hysterical. The Cold War has been over for a quarter of a century now. We are a hugely rich free society. Cuba is a small despotism. Do you have any sense of historical proportion? Cuba has about the population of Ohio. The notion that we are locked into some kind of significant battle with the Catro regime is simply to play into the PR campaign the Castro family has been pulling on the Cuban people for decades. If anything, our useless attempts at diplomatic isolation have helped fuel the Castro regimes propaganda campaign about needing to maintain a police state due to the threat posed against it by the USA.

Our trade with China helps support and enrich corrupt illiberal CPC members. Our trade with Vietnam supports equally corrupt political party membership. Our trade with the middle east enriches and empowers autocratic absolute monarchies. We trade with Sudan, a country whose president is wanted by the ICC for genocide in Darfur. None of this is an argument for diplomatic isolation, nor should it be. Diplomatic isolation has a terrible track record of achieving what it sets out to achieve.

Well, there's your one, yes (and it's actually quite contested). Where else has diplomatic isolation worked? Is that one success proof that diplomatic isolation "works" (meaning is more likely than not to induce behavior change)? What about the numerous times it did not?

"Like the Cuban emmargo, they usually fail because our enemies, and often our allies, ignore the embargo. South Africa worked because everyone honored it.."

Even supposing that is true, you've already conceded the point: the Cuban embargo is not being supported by our enemies or our allies (or whatever Canada is these days, buddy). You're arguing that diplomatic isolation and embargo would work if only the rest of the world would get on-board and honor our strategy, but conceding that they are not.

"On November 8, 2004, the Cuban government withdrew the US dollar from circulation, citing the need to retaliate against further US sanctions."

Oh, Gahrie, that does not mean it is "illegal" for ordinary Cubans to possess US dollars! That meant, as I indicated in my earlier post, that US dollars were no longer accepted at retail businesses and had to be converted into Cuban pesos in order to conduct transactions. This does not make them "illegal."

Bobby said..."On November 8, 2004, the Cuban government withdrew the US dollar from circulation, citing the need to retaliate against further US sanctions."

Oh, Gahrie, that does not mean it is "illegal" for ordinary Cubans to possess US dollars! That meant, as I indicated in my earlier post, that US dollars were no longer accepted at retail businesses and had to be converted into Cuban pesos in order to conduct transactions. This does not make them "illegal."

Transacting business in US dollars is illegal. Dollars aren't illegal to own. For every 100 dollars US sent to a relative in Cuba the government taxes it at 94%. The Cuban citizen gets six dollars which he must immediately convert to special Cuban currency. Which ,unlike the regular Cuban monopoly money ,may be spent in special stores. Not, however, the special stores reserved for the Cuban elite.

Do you have a source on the 94% tax? That's much higher than what I have seen. Thanks in advance!

Gahrie,

That's because US dollars are no longer accepted as legal tender at Cuban retail businesses (which are government-owned). Like, walk down to Ruth's Chris Steakhouse and try buying your dinner with Costa Rican colones, or to the post office and try paying your shipping fees in Euros. They're probably going to make you exchange it for US dollars, but because Ruth's Chris is a private entity they can- if they so choose- accept colones or Euros for payment. Unfortunately, because socialist Cuba's retail businesses are government-owned, they have to play by post office rules.

"I’m also joined by some of America’s top business leaders and entrepreneurs because we’re ready to pursue more commercial ties, which create jobs and opportunity for Cubans and Americans alike."

Sounds pretty close to me.

"This afternoon, I’ll highlight some of the new commercial deals being announced by major U.S. companies. And just as I continue to call on Congress to lift the trade embargo, I discussed with President Castro the steps we urge Cuba to take to show that it is ready to do more business, which includes allowing more joint ventures and allowing foreign companies to hire Cubans directly.

I think it's fair to say I called this one.

3) The U.S. will immediately be providing Cuba with humanitarian aid, probably several hundred million dollars a year."

"And going forward, educational grants and scholarships will be available to Cuban students. And in partnership with the Cuban government, we’ll offer more English language training for Cuban teachers, both in Cuba and online."

GahrieI'm going by what my Cuban friends have been telling me and what Michael Totten wrote.Bottom line. Cuba is a shithole and the Cuban elite want to keep it that way."You've been a good little slave. Have a rice cooker.""But it doesn't work.""Shuttup, anti-revolutionary scum!"